Abstract:The present study investigated participants' ability to introspect about the effect of between-task crosstalk in dual tasks. In two experiments, participants performed a compatibility-based backward crosstalk dual task, and additionally provided estimates of their RTs (introspective reaction times, IRTs) after each trial (Experiment 1) or after each pair of prime and test trials (Experiment 2). In both experiments, the objective performance showed the typical backward crosstalk effect and its sequential modula… Show more
“…Instead, something else may trigger adaptation effects of the BCE. This conclusion also fits with an observation in a recent study by Bratzke and Janczyk (2020). These authors were interested in whether participants’ introspective RTs (i.e., an estimation of RTs on a visual analog scale) would reflect a BCE and its sequential modulation.…”
Abstract. A common observation in dual tasking is a performance decrement in one or both tasks compared with single tasking. Besides, more specific interference occurs depending on certain characteristics of the two tasks. In particular, even Task 1 performance is often improved when responses in both tasks are compatible (e.g., both require left responses) compared to when they are incompatible: the compatibility-based backward crosstalk effect (BCE). Similar to what is observed for conflict tasks, the BCE is sequentially modulated: It is larger following compatible than following incompatible trials. Previous work has attributed this observation to adaptation effects triggered by response conflict arising during incompatible trials. In two experiments, we assessed sequential modulations following trials with different degrees of such a response conflict. In contrast to our expectations, a clear and sizeable sequential modulation was observed even under conditions where no BCE, and thus no empirical sign of an objective response conflict, was present in the previous trial. Therefore, our results show sequential modulations even without prior response conflict, which is not the (sole) trigger of sequential modulations accordingly. We discuss these results with regard to other potential triggers such as the subjective experience of conflict or difficulty, episodic retrieval, and repetitions of response combinations.
“…Instead, something else may trigger adaptation effects of the BCE. This conclusion also fits with an observation in a recent study by Bratzke and Janczyk (2020). These authors were interested in whether participants’ introspective RTs (i.e., an estimation of RTs on a visual analog scale) would reflect a BCE and its sequential modulation.…”
Abstract. A common observation in dual tasking is a performance decrement in one or both tasks compared with single tasking. Besides, more specific interference occurs depending on certain characteristics of the two tasks. In particular, even Task 1 performance is often improved when responses in both tasks are compatible (e.g., both require left responses) compared to when they are incompatible: the compatibility-based backward crosstalk effect (BCE). Similar to what is observed for conflict tasks, the BCE is sequentially modulated: It is larger following compatible than following incompatible trials. Previous work has attributed this observation to adaptation effects triggered by response conflict arising during incompatible trials. In two experiments, we assessed sequential modulations following trials with different degrees of such a response conflict. In contrast to our expectations, a clear and sizeable sequential modulation was observed even under conditions where no BCE, and thus no empirical sign of an objective response conflict, was present in the previous trial. Therefore, our results show sequential modulations even without prior response conflict, which is not the (sole) trigger of sequential modulations accordingly. We discuss these results with regard to other potential triggers such as the subjective experience of conflict or difficulty, episodic retrieval, and repetitions of response combinations.
“…With the insights afforded by these new data, we propose that memory processes can also account for that result. Bratzke and Janczyk ( 2021 ) also observed an awareness of the PRP effect in their Experiment 1 in which participants responded to a visual S1 (a H or S) with a hand response, and to a visual S2 (red or green colour change) with a foot response. It is possible that the inclusion of only one stimulus modality (i.e.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…The typical introspective finding is that neither iRT1 nor iRT2 is affected by SOA, and, therefore, participants appear to be unaware of the dual-task costs in this context (even though other RT effects can be reported, see, e.g. Bryce & Bratzke, 2014 ; Bratzke & Janczyk, 2021 ). Fig.…”
Being able to accumulate accurate information about one’s own performance is important in everyday contexts, and arguably particularly so in complex multitasking contexts. Thus, the observation of a glaring gap in participants’ introspection regarding their own reaction time costs in a concurrent dual-task context is deserving of closer examination. This so-called introspective blind spot has been explained by a ‘consciousness bottleneck’ which states that while attention is occupied by one task, participants cannot consciously perceive another stimulus presented in that time. In the current study, a series of introspective Psychological Refractory Period (PRP) experiments were conducted to identify the determinants of an introspective blind spot; to our surprise, in half of the experiments participants appeared to be aware of their dual-task costs. A single trial analysis highlighted the sensory modality of the two stimuli within the trial as an important predictor of introspective accuracy, along with temporal gaps in the trial. The current findings call into question the claim that attention is required for conscious awareness. We propose a memory-based account of introspective processes in this context, whereby introspective accuracy is determined by the memory systems involved in encoding and rehearsing memory traces. This model of the conditions required to build up accurate representations of our performance may have far-reaching consequences for monitoring and introspection across a range of tasks.
“…Evidence for this might be found in research on introspection. In fact, there is evidence that in some conflict tasks and the dual-task participants can give valid introspective estimations of their RTs, which might be associated with a specific feeling of conflict or an “urge-to-err” (Morsella et al, 2009; Questienne et al, 2018; see also Bratzke & Janczyk, 2021). Thus, if individuals are more or less prone to interference on a stage level, and if they have a subjective feeling for that interference, it is not far-fetched to assume that this leads to a more serial or parallel processing mode at a task level.…”
In multitasking research, a central question revolves around whether humans can process tasks in parallel. What "in parallel" refers to, however, differs between research perspectives and experimental approaches. From a task-level perspective, parallel processing can be conceived as to whether complete tasks are processed in an overlapping manner and how this impacts task performance. In contrast, a large body of literature solely focuses on the central stage of response-selection and whether it can run in parallel with other processing stages, an approach we refer to as the stage-level perspective. Importantly, although each perspective addresses related topics and highlights interindividual differences, they evolved through independent lines of research. In 2 experiments, we have taken a first step to investigate if individuals' tendencies for an overlapping versus serial processing mode on the task level are related to vulnerabilities for task interference on the stage level. Individual preferences for either task processing mode were assessed in the task switching with preview (TSWP) paradigm. Individuals' vulnerability for task interference was assessed with the backward crosstalk effect (BCE) in a classical dual task. Our results suggest that individuals who prefer overlapping relative to serial task processing at the task level are less vulnerable to task interference during response selection, indicated by a smaller BCE. This difference, however, only emerged in the second experiment with an increased sample size and with task-stimuli that facilitate a bottom-up separation of tasks in the dual-task.
Public Significance StatementThere is a considerable range from basic to more applied research in multitasking. However, few studies have tried to link the different research perspectives and experimental approaches employed in basic multitasking research, and even fewer have addressed their relation to more applied multitasking. The present study addresses this gap using an interindividual differences approach. We show that individuals who process multiple tasks in a parallel way in a less restrictive paradigm tend to be less vulnerable to task interference in a paradigm derived from basic multitasking research. Thereby, the study contributes to the literature by describing a relation between multitasking effects found on the level of specific processing stages and on the task level.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
